Wyoming long range hunting debate

[deadwolf]

John, per my original post, I'm going to agree to disagree. After working a gun counter in a montana town (a bigger one) for 3 years, you'd be surprised at the number of clowns that have no trouble launching fmj (or whatever is cheapest) rounds at deer and elk at ranges 500 yds and above. They do not do the practice nor have the equipment to actually do long range hunting...or even call themselves long range hunters, but rest assured many, many so-called hunters do. I'm a life long hunter in my 50s and this job (I took for fun and discounts) has opened my eyes bc it's exposed me to the general population of people who hunt, the vast majority with very different views of hunting, conservation and ethics to me and my friends and family. Case in point, quite a few times per year, guys will claim to hunt after we've bore sighted their rifle without ever shooting it. We have to tell them to do it, they say "yeah right", grab a box of core-locts and leave.

That’s a shame that anyone would go out and hunt after having had their rifle bore sighted at a gun shop, considering the awful boresighting and scope mounting I’ve seen most gun shops do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[3325]

I don’t know where the line is but I get a feeling people are all for a limitation as long as it doesn’t affect the way they hunt.

Guilty.

And I believe this may well be the most accurate thing posted on this thread so far.

 

[SDHNTR]

Personally, I’d see nothing wrong with a regulation stating a fixed 4x scope max with no exposed turrets and a simple crosswire reticle. That would still allow rifle hunters to hunt like rifle hunters, but with practical limitations. Would some asshats still be lobbing 5-600 yard shots? Perhaps, but most wouldn’t. And it would require hunters to have to exhibit some hunting and woodsmanship skills to get within such a range where the animal can actually detect a human presence. Which ultimately, I think is only fair to the animals and is what is most off putting about LR hunting.

 

[Lawnboi]

Let’s make everyone take a shooting test if this is the path you think will make any meaningful impact. If you can’t shoot a 2” 3 shot group off a bench at 100, no hunting, go play golf.

If we did this I’d be getting a lot more tags and only would be hunting with a couple dozen tag holders

A qualification would be cool but not practical

 

[deadwolf]

The very last thing I want is more government “oversight.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ztc92]

If we did this I’d be getting a lot more tags and only would be hunting with a couple dozen tag holders

A qualification would be cool but not practical

I had similar thoughts when I read the initial post about a qualification.

I can’t recall the name/location, but I believe there is an elk refuge or park that has qualifications for hunters to be allowed to participate in a cull hunt. As I recall, in order to qualify, they have 3 minutes to hit 3 shots at 200 (not prone) and 3 shots at 300 (any position) on targets the size of elk vitals.

I’ve never seen the raw data but have read that the pass rates are abysmal. Something like this would all but guarantee those actually out hunting are competent but I agree it would be hard to implement from a practicality standpoint.

 

[wytx]

Wyoming had a shooting proficiency test for bison hunters years back. I passed easily but watched some folks struggle to put 3 shots on a bullseye at 50 yds. Yes, it was eye opening. I was shooting right next to some 45-70 guys, flinching was happening all over the range.

 

[wind gypsy]

I don’t know where the line is but I get a feeling people are all for a limitation as long as it doesn’t affect the way they hunt.

You're likely right in most cases. Not only do hunters suck at shooting, they suck at doing whats best for the resource if they think it might make it slightly harder to kill an animal.

I love my rifles and my ballistic RFs but I'd be all for a max 500 yd range and a reduction in tech allowed. Open sights only or 1x scopes would be fine with me too.

Same with deer hunting in MN and MT. I rifle hunt in the rut but would be all for pushing rifle hunting before/after.

 

[StupidLightweight]

It's an interesting discussion, and I don't have any solutions. The only way to limit long-range rifle hunting is by going to archery or iron-sights only, but that won't prevent wounded animals or unethical shots. It will just move those type of shots closer.

Say we eliminate firearm hunting. Problem solved? Not quite. You now have archers flinging arrows at 125+ yards and muzzleloaders with dialing aperture sights. As an example, Gunwerks' Revic sight below has 32.5 MOAs of travel!

Ultimately, hunters are predators, and in order to kill, we push the limits, so low odds shots will occur with every type of implement. Obviously, some of us are more reckless/ruthless than others, but the risks and rewards are the same whether you have a sharpened stick or a Desert Tech in .408 CheyTac. I don't see how we can legislate away millions of years of killer instinct.

If we do the proficiency test that others describe, it would weed out some of the bad shooters. I don't know if that is good or bad overall, but for Uncle Bob with tremors, a shooting test would quickly bring his 50- or 60-year hunting career to an end.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

You're likely right in most cases. Not only do hunters suck at shooting, they suck at doing whats best for the resource if they think it might make it slightly harder to kill an animal.

I love my rifles and my ballistic RFs but I'd be all for a max 500 yd range and a reduction in tech allowed. Open sights only or 1x scopes would be fine with me too.

Same with deer hunting in MN and MT. I rifle hunt in the rut but would be all for pushing rifle hunting before/after.

How would you know it is at 500 yards and not 550 without your range finder?

It seems to me that this really is all about erecting barriers to entry for hunters at a time when the number of people hunting is falling every year.

Lots of kids in this discussion who want the “must be this tall to ride” to be 1/4” shorter than they are and the “maximum height allowed” to be 1/4” taller than they are.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[SDHNTR]

the number of people hunting is falling every year.



____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Cool story bro.

 

[wind gypsy]

How would you know it is at 500 yards and not 550 without your range finder?

I think outlawing range finders would be dumb, knowing the distance is a crucial part of knowing where to aim and whether you should/shouldn't take the shot. Would hope that 500ish yard shots without a rangefinder are very rare..

It seems to me that this really is all about erecting barriers to entry for hunters at a time when the number of people hunting is falling every year.

Huh? The western hunting demand has been steadily increasing while the supply of opportunities has been shrinking. Not at all what is being discussed here. Trying to create more or retain existing opportunity in the face of technology that is challenging things is more like it.

Lots of kids in this discussion who want the “must be this tall to ride” to be 1/4” shorter than they are and the “maximum height allowed” to be 1/4” taller than they are.

Sure, always is. I also see a lot of people in this Long Range Hunting forum who have the $ in equipment and time invested that are open to being limited further.

 

[Steve O]

Don’t they STILL shoot 1000 yard matches at Camp Perry with standard M1 Garands?

Where can I get a quality dependable 4x scope?

 

[LongWayAround]

How would you know it is at 500 yards and not 550 without your range finder?

It seems to me that this really is all about erecting barriers to entry for hunters at a time when the number of people hunting is falling every year.

Lots of kids in this discussion who want the “must be this tall to ride” to be 1/4” shorter than they are and the “maximum height allowed” to be 1/4” taller than they are.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Are numbers really falling though? Every year it gets harder to get tags. Take a look at Colorado leftover list. Several years ago it was easy to plan on grabbing a decent 3rd season tag. Now, there are very few.

I drew a 3rd season elk tag this season as a second choice. Historically, you could buy that tag in October. This year, quota was totally sold in the primary draw.

Look at application numbers versus tags available. Every year there are more names in the pool.

This isn't a barrier to anyone getting out hunting. It's a topic worth discussing.

I'm not for or against any additional regulations.

I think I saw somewhere that you're from the east/southeast (Virginia maybe?). Do you spend a lot of time in the western states?

We all know there are a bunch of dipshits who shouldn't be shooting at any distance, but I believe this is more of a topic due to the easy button options available. Gunwerks, CDS dials, etcetera. I had a guy tell me that he was good to 600 because of his Vortex BDC scope, I would bet he was incompetent at 300...

 

[Sccritterkiller]

I wonder if Wyoming will add a muzzleloader or primitive weapon season like some other states have done? I’m surprised that it’s just archery (including crossbows) and rifle with no other special/restricted tags or seasons.

I will take their concern seriously when they pull crossbows put of archery season...until then they aren't really serious.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I had similar thoughts when I read the initial post about a qualification.

I can’t recall the name/location, but I believe there is an elk refuge or park that has qualifications for hunters to be allowed to participate in a cull hunt. As I recall, in order to qualify, they have 3 minutes to hit 3 shots at 200 (not prone) and 3 shots at 300 (any position) on targets the size of elk vitals.

I’ve never seen the raw data but have read that the pass rates are abysmal. Something like this would all but guarantee those actually out hunting are competent but I agree it would be hard to implement from a practicality standpoint.

Its in CO, sand dunes. It was 3 shots at 200 standing or kneeling and 3 at 300 any position.



Which brings up a point around ethics, the 200yd part they require a standing or kneeling position. Some people aren't a good shot at unsupported standing / kneeling AND they know it AND they have ethics to not take those shots. But they might be an amazing shot at from various supported positions AND they restrict themselves to it when hunting. IMHO that is still a very good hunter, they know their limitations and choose shots / shooting positions accordingly. I have no problem with the program above requiring that standing/kneeling qualification but I think it would be silly to have it for general hunting.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Are numbers really falling though? Every year it gets harder to get tags. Take a look at Colorado leftover list. Several years ago it was easy to plan on grabbing a decent 3rd season tag. Now, there are very few.

I believe its fairly documented that nationally numbers are falling while popularity of "western" public land hunting is increased. Which isn't surprising when you think about all the land in the east that much is private but historically Farmer John didn't care who hunted his land or such. Now either Farmer John doesn't allow hunting, its leased out OR Framer John's fields are now subdivisions.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Anyone who thinks that hunting with a modern rifle and scope is different at one range than another is just a different level of hypocrite than the guy who thinks that distance is 100 yards more or less.
If they want to limit range, it's going to have to include excluding optics entirely. Which, as a mule deer hunter, I'm entirely in favor of.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

why even optics, just cancel firearms, why not just Archery or Cross bow under 60lbs

 

[Lawnboi]

The irony in this is the politicians and committee members that will make these decisions probably shoot about the same amount as 90% of hunters, which isn’t enough to be proficient at almost any range.

 

[TaperPin]

As much as I bitch about ethics even mine aren’t any better than slob hunters when the animal in question isn’t some breed that could be hung on the wall.

Teaching ethics to kids there is a point where the topic of species special treatment has to be addressed. Does a mule deer deserve better treatment than a rabbit, prairie dog, coyote or field mouse? We wound and squirt prairie dogs across the sage without much of a thought about it. Shooting at running coyotes with little chance of connecting with them is more common than not, yet we blast away.

In agricultural areas it’s easier to justify the ethics of eliminating pests any way possible, but in much of where coyotes and prairie dogs are clobbered out in the middle of nowhere it wouldn’t make any meaningful difference to agriculture if they were hunted or not.

I used to hunt badgers, but they don’t bother people all that much, so now I don’t have a lot of desire. Same with jack rabbits and fox. I grew up in an area where everyone hunted these three so hard it was rare to ever see one, and now I’d rather see them than not, let alone take pot shots and leave them three legged or gut shot.

Still it’s chiseled in stone in my mind that if someone can’t hit a 10” paper plate with the first shot it’s too far for them to try while hunting big game. That will probably never change and exactly the day after I kick over and start pushing up daisies it won’t make a bit of difference to anyone else. The best that can be hoped for is an annoying nephew or grand kid to carry on the torch and pester his friends with the idea. *chuckle*